Proving Asymptotic Bound: n*4^n=O(n!)

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bound
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that \( n \cdot 4^n = O(n!) \). Participants explore various approaches to establish this asymptotic bound, including direct proof, induction, and considerations of specific cases.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a proof that \( n \cdot 4^n \leq c \cdot n! \) for \( n \geq 0 \) with constants \( n_0 = 0 \) and \( c = 4^4 \).
  • Another participant questions the validity of the proof for \( n < 4 \) due to the notation used, suggesting that it does not make sense for those values.
  • Some participants emphasize that a proof of big-O must use a single constant \( c \) that works for all \( n \), noting that the initial proof checks specific values of \( n \) starting from 1.
  • There is a suggestion to redefine \( n_0 \) to 4 to avoid complications with the proof's validity for smaller \( n \).
  • One participant expresses interest in how to prove the statement by induction for \( n \geq 4 \), providing a base case and an inductive step.
  • Another participant suggests a method involving inequalities and multiplication to facilitate the inductive proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for a single constant \( c \) in the proof but disagree on the sufficiency of the initial proof for all \( n \). The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to formalize the proof, particularly for \( n < 4 \).

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the initial proof's reliance on notation that may not be valid for all \( n \) and the need for clarity on the definitions of constants used in big-O notation.

evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hi! (Wave)

$$\text{ I want to prove that } n \cdot 4^n=O(n!), \text{ so that } \exists c>0, n_0 \geq 0, \text{ such that } \forall n \geq n_0: n \cdot 4^n \leq c \cdot n!$$

That's what I have tried:

$$n \cdot 4^n=n \cdot \underbrace{4 \cdot 4 \cdots 4}_n=4 \cdot 4 \cdot 4 \cdot4 \cdot \underbrace{4 \cdot 4 \cdots 4}_{n-4} \cdot n \leq 4^4 \cdot 1 \cdot 2 \cdot 3 \cdot \underbrace{4 \cdot 4 \cdots 4}_{n-4} \cdot n \leq 4^4 \cdot 1 \cdot 2 \cdot 3 \cdot 4 \cdot 5 \cdots (n-1) \cdot n=4^4 \cdot n!, \forall n \geq 0$$

We pick $n_0=0$ and $c=4^4$ and we have that: $4^n=O(n!)$.

Can we say it like that or do we have to prove that it stands also with an other way, for example by induction? (Thinking)
 
Technology news on Phys.org
Your proof works for $n\ge 4$, but I am not sure about $n<4$ since you use the notation $\underbrace{4 \cdot 4 \cdots 4}_{n-4}$, which does not make sense for $n<4$. The constants $n_0=0$ and $c=4^4$ are correct, though.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Your proof works for $n\ge 4$, but I am not sure about $n<4$ since you use the notation $\underbrace{4 \cdot 4 \cdots 4}_{n-4}$, which does not make sense for $n<4$. The constants $n_0=0$ and $c=4^4$ are correct, though.

I undertstand! (Nod) So, does this proof suffice or do I have to prove it also by indunction or with an other way? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
So, does this proof suffice
Hmm. Let me say it again.
Evgeny.Makarov said:
I am not sure about $n<4$ since you use the notation $\underbrace{4 \cdot 4 \cdots 4}_{n-4}$, which does not make sense for $n<4$.
evinda said:
do I have to prove it also by indunction
Technically, every proof that involves ellipses ($\cdots$) uses induction. However, it is often abbreviated by using dots or by saying things like "and so on". Usually this is perfectly fine. I don't think rewriting your proof to use explicit induction would make it clearer, so if your course does not require induction, I would leave it as is after correcting the $n<4$ case. For example, $(1\cdot2\cdot\ldots\cdot(n-1))\cdot n\ne n!$ when $n=0$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Hmm. Let me say it again.

Technically, every proof that involves ellipses ($\cdots$) uses induction. However, it is often abbreviated by using dots or by saying things like "and so on". Usually this is perfectly fine. I don't think rewriting your proof to use explicit induction would make it clearer, so if your course does not require induction, I would leave it as is after correcting the $n<4$ case. For example, $(1\cdot2\cdot\ldots\cdot(n-1))\cdot n\ne n!$ when $n=0$.

For $n=1: 4 \leq c \cdot 1$, for $c=4 \checkmark$

For $n=2: 2 \cdot 16 \leq c \cdot 2$, for $c=16 \checkmark$

For $n=3: 3 \cdot 4^3 \leq c 6$, for $c=4^3 \checkmark$

For $n=4: 4^5 \leq c \cdot 4 \cdot 3 \cdot 2$, for $c=4^4 \checkmark$

Is it right? (Thinking)
 
What you wrote is correct, but a proof of big-O must use a single $c$. This is expressed in the fact that in the definition of big-O $\exists c$ comes before $\forall n\ge n_0$. This means that a single $c$ must work for all $n$. This is crucial because if $c$ can change with $n$, then I can say that $n^2=O(n)$ because for $c=n$ we have $n^2\le cn$. Of course, in your proof you can simply take $c=4^4$ in all cases.

Also, you checked some values of $n$ starting from $n=1$, but in your initial proof $n_0=0$ and $n\ge n_0$, i.e., $n$ can equal 0.

I would not go through this hassle and simply declare $n_0=4$, so that the general case of your proof works.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
What you wrote is correct, but a proof of big-O must use a single $c$. This is expressed in the fact that in the definition of big-O $\exists c$ comes before $\forall n\ge n_0$. This means that a single $c$ must work for all $n$. This is crucial because if $c$ can change with $n$, then I can say that $n^2=O(n)$ because for $c=n$ we have $n^2\le cn$. Of course, in your proof you can simply take $c=4^4$ in all cases.

Also, you checked some values of $n$ starting from $n=1$, but in your initial proof $n_0=0$ and $n\ge n_0$, i.e., $n$ can equal 0.

I would not go through this hassle and simply declare $n_0=4$, so that the general case of your proof works.

I understand! (Smile)

How could we prove it by induction for $n \geq 4$?

For $n=4: 4 \cdot 4^4 \leq 4^4 \cdot 4! \checkmark$

We suppose that $n \cdot 4^n \leq 4^4 \cdot n!$

$(n+1) \cdot 4^{n+1}=n \cdot 4^{n+1}+4^{n+1}=n \cdot 4^n \cdot 4+4^n \cdot 4$

How could we continue? (Thinking)
 
You could prove that $4\frac{n+1}{n}\le n+1$ for $n\ge 4$ and multiply $4^nn$ by $4\frac{n+1}{n}$ and $n!$ by $n+1$.

I believe that your original proof (which, unlike the idea above, does not use fractions) can be written more carefully and explicitly in inductive form, but I don't have time at the moment to write it out. I'll think about it later.
 
Your original idea can be rendered using induction as follows.

Lemma. If $n\ge 4$, then
\[
4^n<4^4(n-1)!\enspace.\qquad(*)
\]
Proof by induction on $n$. If $n=4$, then $4^4<4^4\cdot1\cdot2\cdot 3$. Suppose that $4^k<4^4(k-1)!$ and $k\ge 4$. Then multiplying the left-hand side by $4$ and the right-hand side by $k\ge 4$ the inequality becomes $4^{k+1}<4^4k!$, as required.

Theorem. If $n\ge 4$, then $4^nn<4^4n!$.
Proof. Just multiply both sides of (*) by $n$.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
59
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K